The result could not be even remotely legal, so how can the proposal go forward?
The name “Puppets not People.” Would be more apt.
Proposal 2 of 2018 is one of the most bizarre creations to be tested before the voting public. Several pages of changes to our state constitution without the benefit of a convention, and a significant change to state government through a vote where maybe TWO or THREE percent of voters will have a full understanding of the changes being made.
The Michigan Supreme Court failed miserably in stopping what amounts to a coup of Michigan’s constitution.It should immediately review and recall its decision, or face future docket challenges it cannot meet.
The mess this proposal will create is undeniable. Literally prepared for court battles, the proposal inserts language into our constitution that authorizes the commission to ‘prosecute’ the legislature for financial ability to defend itself against expected redistricting challenges. What this means is that unlimited taxpayer dollars will be used to fend off any taxpayer disagreements with whatever crazy apportionment happens.
This ‘clever’ bit of political takeover quite frankly takes the power AWAY from the people of Michigan. The Orwellian name ‘voters not politicians’ gives certain political influences (through social media and misinformation) more of a permanent grasp on the political mechanics, with little or no chance for timely corrections.
A group called United Impact Group, LLC is asking clerks across Michigan for copies of voted ballots and other material from the November 2016 election, using the Freedom of Information Act. Michigan’s news media cannot seem to figure out who they are and are posting ominous articles.
Our first recommendation is the “real deal” according to the people he has worked with.
It is easy to support Tom Leonard for the nomination of Attorney General. Aside from the points made in the video on the right, he has not wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on landfill content as has the other convention candidate, and has a full war chest to battle the pussyhat wearing leftist the Democrats are nominating.
Tom Leonard is our recommendation for attorney general of Michigan
Board of education choices find us with two GOP nominated seats expiring at this time. We defer to the MCU recommendations Of Dr. Zeile and Tami Carlone. at this time.
The first Congressional District needs to reconsider inappropriate action.
There are people within the Republican party that still don’t get it.
It is one thing to privately support candidates they like. It is fully yet another to officially endorse a candidate while the party itself is still determining the outcome.
An official endorsement implies many things, among which is the suggestion that anyone else who wishes to participate within the process is really no longer welcome. That the efforts made to support a party committee will be diverted to represent interests that the contributor does not want.
Is the 1st CD cte trying to lessen overall involvement by those who might disagree with pet choices in a primary?
When a general election arrives it is all hands on deck as implied with membership of the party. However, in a primary or pre-convention contest, the suggestion that all members have coalesced to agree that a single candidate is preferable over another is ludicrous and irresponsible.
I am a member of the 1st congressional district, and as a Republican delegate I was never consulted, nor asked for an opinion on the letter you see to the right. Are we to conclude that duly elected delegates are to be ignored by the 1st congressional district executive board in the acts of favoritism?
There was no vote that we were allowed to participate in on this, and unilateral decision making is apparently the new rule. While I had no horse in this contest, it is troubling that those who do would pretend to know my favor.
The first congressional district should rescind its endorsement until after the convention has selected its candidate.
Does one relinquish their rights in Michigan in order to foster a child?
Attorney Bill Schuette does a solid here.
Nick Lyon is having a bad week, but probably deserves it. He is now on trial for Flint’s water based woes (why Michigan ever became involved in this however is beyond me), and the department he runs is being sued for constitutional violations.
William and Jill Johnson live in Ontonagon Michigan. They wanted to take care of their grandson. They also wanted to step up and offer their home to foster other children in need. This last part put them at odds with MDHHS and along with others sharing their interest sued MDHHS director Lyon and the state of Michigan.
11. The Johnsons were asked by the State of Michigan to be foster parents to their grandchild. When Johnson and Jill and Mason went to pick up Johnson’s grandson at the MDHHS, Johnson was searched. Even though Johnson was not carrying a firearm, the MDHHS officials still demandedto see Johnson’s Concealed Pistol License. The caseworkers stated that Mr. Johnson, a 100% disabled veteran, was going to have to give them the serial numbers for all of his guns, including shotguns and rifles. When Johnson questioned the caseworkers about this, they told him: “if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.” They then told the Johnsons that “there would not be a power struggle, that they would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home.” The MDHHS later said they had “big concerns” over Johnson exercising his Second Amendment rights and carrying a firearm. There is nothing in Johnson’s history that would warrant such concerns.
Step Right Up - The Greatest Show On Earth is about to begin!
Every two years, the factions of the Republican party get to have a little fun.
Don’t get me wrong, the democrats run the fun/ridiculous machine overtime. No matter what anyone tells you, those who hook their wagons to the Socialist lite democrat banner are already exhibiting what should be in the APA DSM manuals. The GOP has a few critical cases, but generally the differences are in the way we want to approach the argument.
However, there are still too many people who think that a life of crime ..er a life of service .. a political paycheck is the way to go. Perhaps the prestige of those ‘power’ positions, and maybe even the real reward of patronage while in and out of office can make such aspirations appealing.
It may seem that the time spent and asses people have to kiss to grab that golden ring would be far better spent with family, doing vacations, building a business, etc. I have run a couple of primary challenge campaigns to incumbents, but have no desire to be seated long term. Some folks do it to effect REAL reformative change however.
I suspect most politicians actually feel that they have a ‘mission’ as well when starting on such an adventure, but also having won a campaign against an incumbent in a primary, I have also experienced the pressure of acceptance. To the novice of political office, it is exceptionally easy to be sucked into the ‘best intentions’ paradigm.
Request to rescind/remove co-sponsorship of the Roe V Wade resolution made the day after.
I am committed to the truth.
Whether or not the initial record of cosponsoring is some freakish inexplicable mistake, Tonya Schuitmaker DID apparently request removal from the list of cosponsors of the resolution in question.
This image is apparently the request made the day after the journal date.
A couple things are strange however. It does not say “Please correct the record to reflect that I DID NOT cosponsor this resolution” And.. (as a side thought) Medicaid expansion in Michigan IS abortion funding.
I will make sure any comments on her behalf are included, as I rarely filter except for the spam we often receive.
Tonya Schuitmaker pro Roe v Wade a disturbing development
An Attorney General can ‘decide’ not to defend the constitution.
A state AG can decide based on personal motivation to pursue (or not) just about anything that strikes their fancy. This is why it is important to understand the core beliefs of those whom we might elevate to such a position.
Imagine if the contentious Roe v. Wade were to be sent back to the states so that the state of Michigan could decide. Would the AG support the efforts to protect the sanctity of life; protect the unborn from the brutality of abortion on demand? Where would the AG’s conscience lay?
“Demeaning women and disrespecting others is unacceptable behavior. I am raising four kids to stand up for others, to love their neighbor, to exemplify respect and integrity. I do not tolerate anything less from my kids, and I will not tolerate anything less from someone who wants to be President of the United States,” she wrote in 2016.
She wrote that she had remained quiet until then out of respect to voters who had chosen Trump as the nominee, “But it is clear that Donald Trump has not earned my respect or my vote.”
Apparently, she didn’t give that vote to him either.
This morning’s radio audio has Tim Skubick asking if she voted for him. She replied with “I support President Trump and the policies that are coming out of his administration. ” or some other variation of this, but for the three times she was asked, three times she avoided directly answering the question.
Clearly, she didn’t vote for the president in the general election of 2016. It is understandable that in the primary other Republicans might get the vote of the flag bearer, or flag bearer jr. Hell, we all had our favorites. But when the choice in the general means electing a Republican or promoting a dedicated criminal enterprise, it seems a person of reasonable intelligence might choose the former.